Etrex 20x vs Oregon 450

[+terratin]

I have an old Oregon 450 which is on its last legs. Been offered an Etrex20x at a good price but wonder if it would be a step back. What about the compass/barometer especially? Anything else? (Chirp/Wherigo is no issue).i make a lot of use of ‘follow road’ when driving and no phone signal/abroad.

Edited January 28, 2020 by terratin

[+Atlas Cached]

The eTrex 20x does not include ABC sensors as your Oregon 450 does. Do you use the Compass and Barometric Altimeter frequently? Do you have good vision? The eTrex 20x screen is a wee bit smaller, may have to squint! Do you prefer touchscreen over thumbstick? I will say, the eTrex 10/20x/30x models are very compact and comfortable to hold in the hand, so if none of this is a bother, you may find you like it!

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Atlas Cached

[+terratin]

3 hours ago, Atlas Cached said:

The eTrex 20x does not include ABC sensors as your Oregon 450 does. Do you use the Compass and Barometric Altimeter frequently? Do you have good vision? The eTrex 20x screen is a wee bit smaller, may have to squint! Do you prefer touchscreen over thumbstick? I will say, the eTrex 10/20x/30x models are very compact and comfortable to hold in the hand, so if none of this is a bother, you may find you like it!

 

 

 

Thanks for your answer,

yeah, the compass is a worry to me. Altimeter is also extremely useful for mountain hikes. I think I should look at the 30/30x instead. I've used the 30 before and liked the screen size. The nav stick.. well, the GPS before the Oregon had one as well. Not too keen on it in some situations but it works fine. The size is perfect though: smaller and lighter than the Oregon. Thus no complaint there.

[+Atlas Cached]

You know they just released the new eTrex 32x with twice the memory and TopoActive mapping included....

[+terratin]

19 minutes ago, Atlas Cached said:

You know they just released the new eTrex 32x with twice the memory and TopoActive mapping included....

 I'm not sure how memory between the original 30 compares to my Oregon, but I never had the urge to load more than say 1000 caches. Thus I don't think I need more memory. I use OSM maps and don't need Topostuff either. I just want an affordable GPS that is not a step down from the Oregon, but preferably a bit smaller and lighter. It's frustrating enough that I'm in Europe, and not the US where those things are so much cheaper.

Edited January 28, 2020 by terratin

[+Atlas Cached]

Ah, well the 30x may be just the ticket for you then!

[+Mineral2]

memory is really only an issue if you are loading maps directly onto the device. Cache files are relatively small. But the 20x/30x support the same 5000 geocache limit as your Oregon 450. If you do like the Oregon, you might be able to find a 600 at a good price and it is a wonderful upgrade with some incredibly useful features that Garmin has yet to include in any other GPS line (ex. the customizable user buttons).

[+Atlas Cached]

Very true Mineral2, the list of features on the Oregon 6x0 is hard to beat.

[+speakers-corner]

I went from a 450 to the 700 and enjoy every minute I use it. There is vitually no limit to the amount of Caches you can load if you connect it with a cell phone / tablet. I also have a 32GB SD-Card Memory.